Explores how constitutional orders engage with and are shaped by their exteriors.

Explores how the central question of philosophy of law is the legal subject's: how can that be law for me?

Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil , first published in 2006, concerns what is entailed by pledging allegiance to a constitutional text and tradition saturated with concessions to evil. The Constitution of the United States was originally understood as an effort to mediate controversies between persons who disputed fundamental values, and did not offer a vision of the good society. In order to form a 'more perfect union' with slaveholders, late-eighteenth-century citizens fashioned a constitution that plainly compelled some injustices and was silent or ambiguous on other questions of fundamental right. This constitutional relationship could survive only as long as a bisectional consensus was required to resolve all constitutional questions not settled in 1787. Dred Scott challenges persons committed to human freedom to determine whether antislavery northerners should have provided more accommodations for slavery than were constitutionally strictly necessary or risked the enormous destruction of life and property that preceded Lincoln's new birth of freedom.

This book explains the challenge of constitutional pluralism and its importance, showing its theoretical and practical relevance, and giving a sense of why the existing scholarship on the matter is unsatisfactory. The work explores how legal practitioners and theorists have faced the challenge of a society living under two constitutions at the same time. This comes as the European Union, which legally and politically integrates Europe and seems to challenge the view that no State can simultaneously abide by both the venerable national constitutions and the ever-developing EU constitutional law, is increasingly torn between calls for closer integration to face collective challenges and mounting Euroscepticism and nationalism. This work employs a strongly pluralist perspective and a comparative methodology, and looks at constitutional crises outside the EU to ground the claim that pluralism and conflicts are essential elements of modern constitutions. It shows how the challenge of constitutional pluralism depends on a mistaken interpretation of positivist theory and how the latter, reinterpreted in a manner close to legal realism, has the resources to explain pluralism. Finally, the book addresses the issue of constitutional conflicts within the EU: it examines in detail recent cases of open disobedience to EU law by national courts and distinguishes physiological conflict from constitutional pathology. This work will be of particular interest to students and academics in Law and Political Science. It will also be compelling reading for scholars in general jurisprudence, EU law, constitutional and comparative constitutional law, and the history of European integration.

What sort of methods are best suited to understanding constitutional doctrines and practices? Should we look to lawyers and legal methods alone, or should we draw upon other disciplines such as history, sociology, political theory, and moral philosophy? Should we study constitutions in isolation or in a comparative context? To what extent must constitutional methods be sensitive to empirical data about the functioning of legal practice? Can ideal theory aid our understanding of real constitutions? This volume brings together constitutional experts from around the world to address these types of questions through topical events and challenges such as Brexit, administrative law reforms, and the increasing polarisations in law, politics, and constitutional scholarship. Importantly, it investigates the ways in which we can ensure that constitutional scholars do not talk past each other despite their persistent - and often fierce - disagreements. In so doing, it aims systematically to re-examine the methodology of constitutional theory.

A fresh look at the bridges and boundaries between foreign relations law and public international law.

Preeminent historian of medicine Owsei Temkin brought to his writing an awesome range of scholarship, for he was at home in the classical, the medieval, and the modern eras. The essays gathered in this volume deal with all the topics that Temkin considered most important in his work. They were widely commended for their originality, intelligent analysis, and impressive continuity of thought. Temkin explores the history of basic medical sciences, of health and disease, and of surgery and drug therapy, as well as general questions concerning the historical and philosophical approach to medicine from antiquity to the early twentieth century. In a retrospective introduction which gives the book its name, Temkin relates his writings to his career as a scholar in Germany and the United States. He situates the writings against the background of the development of the study of medical history and provides recollections of such prominent figures as Karl Sudhoff, Henry E. Sigerist, William H. Welch, and Richard H. Shryock.